TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 31 December 2015 was dispatched by RPAD and is shown by the post office records to have been delivered on 13 January 2016. Even though the appellant has procured another certified copy of the order on 26 August 2016, we are of the view that the date of service of the order-in-original is to be considered as 13 January 2016, since the order was dispatched by RPAD in terms of Section 37C (i) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2018 dated 28 February 2018. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various gases falling under Chapter 28 and 29 of the Central Excise Tariff. A valuation dispute arose between the Department and the appellant and a show cause notice dated 4 March 2015 was issued proposing to demand short paid service tax for the period March 2014 to January 2015. The Original Authority confirmed the dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the order-in-original 31 December 2015 was received in the appellant s factory on 13 January 2016. In view of the above, the Commissioner (Appeals) took this date as the date of receipt of the order and held that the appeal was required to be filed by 12 March 2016. Since, the same was filed on 19 September 2016, with the delay beyond the condonable period of 30 days in terms of Section 35 (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 January 2016. However, he submitted that it was received by someone in the front desk who could not be identified. 5. Learned Departmental Representative justified the impugned order. He submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of one month, after the period of two months specified in Section 35B. He further relied on the decision of Hon b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
